September 2, 2026 • 33 mins
This episode of the Dan Caplis Show is a thought-provoking discussion about the upcoming student walkouts planned for this Friday to protest ICE. The speaker shares listener feedback and ideas on what the consequences should be for students who choose to walk out of school. Some listeners suggest giving a test that day, making it 75% of the grade, or having students complete an extra day at the end of the year if they participate in the walkout.
The conversation touches on the complexities of the issue, with some arguing that students who walk out should be held accountable for missing school, while others believe that the focus should be on educating students about the importance of civics and the complexities of immigration. The speaker also shares a story about a school district that used a unique approach to address a similar issue in the past.
The discussion also delves into the topic of immigration and the role of ICE, with some listeners sharing their perspectives on the issue. The speaker notes that there are different categories of individuals who have entered the country illegally, and that some have committed serious crimes, while others have not.
If you're interested in hearing more about this topic and the ideas shared by listeners, tune in to the full episode to hear the speaker's thoughts on the matter and the potential consequences for students who choose to walk out.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Are going to have walkouts this Friday to protest ICE. Now,
it could all be a big bunch of smoke from
these organizers, and you may get a relative handful, certainly
more in Denver, walkout. We'll find out together. But if
it's true, and we're looking at mass walkouts, what should
the consequences be? And we've had tremendous listener feedback on
this and really great ideas. And I would hope everybody
(00:22):
on both sides would agree with the premise that there
has to be a consequence. I mean, first of all,
schools are supposed to teach, and it's a big deal
for kids to now be missing their class and their education.
And if nothing else, you've got to teach them the
lesson of, okay, if you're going to break the rules
on a matter of principle in your mind, then whether
(00:44):
I agree with your principle or not, there's got to
be a consequence or you aren't learning anything. And if
it's truly a matter of principle for you, you should
be willing to pay the consequence to walk out. So
what should that consequence be? And we've had some tremendous
ideas from our listeners, such as the one who said, hey,
you know, have a test that day that's 75% of
(01:05):
the grade and no makeups. Now, a little bit challenging
when you're talking about September 4th, but still a nice
creative concept. Here's another one. And you can text me
at DAN57739. Dan, add a day at the end of
the year. That is a great idea. Okay, hey, knock
(01:25):
yourselves out. Go protest ICE all you want. But all
these kids who stay in school, their school year ends
on June 3rd. You've got to come back on June 4th.
I just love that idea. Another text, Dan, Holy Family
wrote parents yesterday saying they do not know Why they're
on the list and as a school do not condone
(01:47):
walkouts makes me question the entire list. Yeah, we had
a text like that earlier. I agree completely. And I
gave that caveat at the beginning of the show. We
don't know if this is just a bunch of lefty
groups making things up. This we know, and I don't
say it as a pejorative. It's just we just know this.
The left lies all the time. It's kind of a
badge of honor within the left that you're willing to lie.
(02:09):
They know they can't win on the truth. So they
may be making a whole lot of this up or
maybe not. We're going to find out.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Together.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Let's see some other good ideas here. Dan, judging by
how well Colorado students have been performing, shouldn't they maybe
stay in class? I think we can be pretty sure
that the ones who most need to be in class
are probably going to be the ones walking out, at
least disproportionately. Though I understand the peer pressure type thing.
(02:40):
And you're going to have plenty of kids. It's one
of the reasons why Schools really need to discourage this.
I know you can't chain them to the chair, but
you get so many kids who they don't want to
be ostracized because they didn't walk out. So a relative
handful are walking out and the others say, okay, I'll
walk out of school so it just doesn't cause me
any trouble within the school. But then you're going to
(03:02):
get other kids who just say, no, as a matter
of principle, I'm not going to do it. And I'm
going to stand up and stand on my principle and
stay in school. So that'll be interesting to see. Let's see.
There are some of these. Just can't read on a
family show. Dan, students who walk out should have to
write a 10-page paper addressing the other side of the issue.
(03:26):
And then what's the consequence if they don't? And that
probably depends on the school that you're in. Dan, schools
should demonstrate democracy at work by organizing ICE debates conducted
by students. forces them to put their actions where their
mouths are. And this brings us back to the underlying issue, right?
(03:46):
This whole idea of protesting ICE to begin with. Now,
my premise, and we don't have a kid high school
age right now, but my premise is that you have,
in part because of social media, AI, et cetera, so
much news is online now, you've got a lot more
kids than we'd probably think. you know, who support ICE
(04:10):
and they understand that while a lot of otherwise good
people who have not committed any other crimes entered this
country illegally because Democrats invited them in, that at the
same time, there were some people who entered illegally who
are hardened rapists and murderers and that ICE is protecting
(04:30):
all of us when they go out there and when
they deport people here illegally who are committing other crimes.
I think there are probably a whole bunch of kids
who who realize that. And so it'll be interesting to
see how many actually walk out. Now, before the break,
we had a text from somebody who says, Dan, I
think the kids would see it as their free speech rights,
(04:53):
and we'd be better off teaching them a full perspective
of the civics in this matter, rather than trying to
convince them by telling them everybody that's being deported is
a criminal, who may very well be a relative they
know is not a criminal, other than their immigration status.
And again, thank you for that text. And I do
(05:13):
know that we all know that some of the folks
who have been deported, you know, have not committed other
serious crimes. So you're right about that texture. I think
the gist of this, and you can see different stats
on this, is that a clear majority of those deported
have been folks who have committed other crimes. So you're right.
You may very well have kids in school who say, Yeah,
(05:37):
they hadn't committed any of the crimes, but they know
that the individual is still here illegally. And I completely
respect the fact that there are a lot of reasonable people,
you know, myself included, who do not think that we
should be devoting resources to going out and rounding up
(05:58):
in mass, you know, people who came to this country
illegally a long time ago and have not committed any
other crime. I don't think that should be our focus.
I think you've got a different category for folks who
came in through this, you know, Biden, Polis, Johnston, Bennett, Hickenlooper,
(06:19):
all the Democrats, when they decided to just open the
border wide and flood this nation with folks coming here
illegally so the Democrats could try to gain an electoral advantage. Yeah,
I would put that the recent, you know, folks who entered...
As part of this political ploy by the defendants, I
would put that in a different category generally. But the
(06:42):
folks who've been here a long time, not committed any
other crime, no, I don't think we should be actively
rounding them up and deporting them. The folks who are
here illegally and have committed other serious crimes, it should
be a very top priority to get them out of
the country. And my guess is that's probably where most
(07:02):
Americans are at. I can't prove that to you, but
my guess is that's probably where most are at. So
if some kid in a school, you know, has had
a relative who's been here a long time and hasn't
committed any crime and that person got deported and the
kid feels very strongly about it and just wants to
walk out of school, I still think they shouldn't walk
(07:22):
out of school. But I'd have much more understanding for
that kid. Then what's probably going to be ninety nine
point nine percent of the kids who walk out who
just want to protest, you know, law enforcement officers who
are making all of us safer. And I know I
have a series of texts that say, Dan, ICE isn't perfect.
ICE did this. ICE did that. Listen, the point is,
(07:45):
this is a human process. There's no human organization on
Earth that's perfect.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
None.
Speaker 4 (07:50):
None.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
And so I just think it's so wrong to judge
ICE by a relative handful of folks who've committed certain abuses.
There's no perfect human entity or organization. But overall, you're
talking about law enforcement officers who do a dangerous job
that makes us safer. And so I think the schools
have to have some serious consequence for the kids who leave.
(08:15):
What do you think it should be?
Speaker 4 (08:16):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Here's my game plan. I'm going to come back, go
straight to the phone line, start to get our callers in,
take some more texts. I do, if you'll indulge me
in this for about 30 seconds, I do just want
to congratulate a couple of folks from my office. And
there's a bigger point in this. What I really want
to do is congratulate them because they deserve it. Melissa
Winters and John Kellner, and they went up to Boulder
(08:44):
last week and a half, and they've been trying a
case against a trucking company. And the point of the
story is this, that You know, you have this client.
She's seriously injured. And you have the trucking company come
in and tell the jury to award her like $ 50, 000.
And to me, you know, the jury heard the case.
It was decided in the courtroom. But it is so
(09:05):
important and it is so gratifying. The jury came back
and said, no, the value of those losses is $ 5. 3 million.
And so I just I really commend Melissa and John
for going up and fighting that fight and making that point.
And it's hard work. But I just think that people
deserve respect and their injuries deserve respect. And it is
(09:26):
hard work to present all that medical evidence and prove
what's really going on. And so I just really respect
John and Melissa for doing that hard work and just
grateful for the process and the way it works and
everybody who serves on juries and the courts. And I'm
glad I live in a country where that can happen.
You're on the Dan Kaplan Show. where kids are supposed
(09:51):
to be walking out this Friday to protest ICE. We
have no idea whether that's one kid or half the
student body. Again, the whole thing may be a lie
from the left. And I'll give you the list again
of some of the groups that are pushing this. But
the starting point for you is what should the consequence
be for the kids who walk out? And then we'll
(10:12):
take it from there. We've had some tremendous suggestions ranging from, yeah,
you just give a test that day. That's 75 percent
of the grade. No makeups. Another great suggestion was, hey,
you know, and I like this one better, is everybody
who walks out has an extra day at the end
of the year. All the other kids finish June 3rd,
but the walkouts, they finish June 4th. My point is
there's got to be a consequence or else you're failing
(10:33):
the kids in two ways. You're failing the kids by
having them walk out and miss out on education, and
then you're depriving them of the educational point of, okay,
if you're going to stand on principle, even a wrong
principle like that, you're going to stand on principle, there's
going to be a consequence. Back to the phone lines.
Let's go to Mary. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome, Mary.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
Hi.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
A long time ago, there was a place in Illinois,
and they solved this problem, mind you, with not 500
kids all at once. But when they got out of line,
the district bought a farm. And those kids had.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
To go and live on that farm for two months.
Speaker 6 (11:16):
And they had to work from 8 in.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
The morning till 5 in the afternoon. And as the
farm grew and it became an income-making thing, it went
back to the school district. Wow.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
What did the kids walk out over?
Speaker 7 (11:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
What do kids ever walk out over?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Walk out. They were in trouble with the school.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
What a great story. Thank you for that, Mary. Thank
you for that. William, you're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome. 303-713-8255.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Welcome, William.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Yeah, Dan.
Speaker 8 (11:55):
I have a point and a question. As far as
I'm concerned, they ought to be suspended or expelled. They
don't deserve to.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Be catered to.
Speaker 8 (12:08):
But my question also to you is these dreamers and
these people that don't commit crimes, what do you think
about making that a civil penalty rather than a criminal
penalty and making them pay fees or fines and maybe
the amount of money that they would pay to enter
the country legally?
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Well, I think to your point, you know, there has
to be some really significant price involved. for staying in
this country when you first came here illegally. So ultimately,
and someday there will be some resolution of that. Yeah,
it can't just be free. There has to be a
significant price. But the other point of it is, and listen,
(12:52):
I get the power of this argument completely. You have
all these people who have stayed where they are, and
they've waited in line, and they've done it by the book,
and how do you let anybody else jump ahead of them?
And that is such a powerful argument. The only thing
I would say to that, and again, for those just joining,
I'm talking about people who've been here a long time
(13:15):
and have not committed any other crime. And the reason
that I don't think we should have an active roundup
of them, whereas I think we should have ICE actively
rounding up everybody here illegally who's committed other serious crimes,
whether it's at their original location or here, is I think, William,
and tell me if you disagree, I think both parties,
(13:37):
until Donald Trump was elected in 2016, I think both
parties were guilty of essentially inviting people to come to
this country illegally. I think the Democrats did it. I
think the Republicans did it. And when you've got both
parties essentially inviting people to come here illegally, if you've
(13:58):
had such folks who took them up on that invitation
and they've been here now for a very long time
and not committed any other crimes... I don't see where
our priorities should be trying to round them up and
get them out of the country.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Well, I agree.
Speaker 8 (14:13):
I think the Republicans and the Democrats had different reasons
for doing the same thing.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
That's a good point. That's a good point. Hey, appreciate
the call. Thank you, my friend. Now, I distinguish from
this current wave where the Democrats in power, state and federal,
decided to just open the border wide. and invite in
as many as they could cram into this country legally
in as short a period of time as possible without
(14:40):
any regard for vetting or anything like that. I think
the people who came in through this latest wave, when
the Democrats were very cynically just trying to stack the
deck politically for themselves, no, I put them in a
different category. But the folks who have been here a
very long time without committing any other crime, no, I
think both parties invited them in. I think both parties
(15:02):
invited those folks in, you know, leading up to 2016.
And am I missing something? Or was Trump the first
president to just really draw the line and say, no,
we've got to enforce our laws at the border? Interesting, too,
and we'll deep dive it tomorrow. But you'll see some
reference out there to a poll of Latinos in Colorado.
And the poll, to me, seems to be very slanted
(15:26):
in favor of the Democrats. But one thing that's really
fascinating is is the only area, and this goes to
the slant in the poll, the only policy area where
Republicans tie the Democrats is on enforcing the border. Isn't
that interesting? That in a poll of Latinos that I
(15:47):
believe was slanted toward the Colorado Democratic Party, Republicans tied
the Democrats on that one issue only, controlling the border.
I think it's just so very telling, right? And it's
It's another reason I'm so optimistic about the future in
Colorado because as a practical matter, and this is not
a red good, blue bad kind of thing. I'm just
(16:10):
being realistic. I was a Democrat for years. I followed
the facts to the Republican Party.
Speaker 5 (16:15):
But the fact is the only way to save this
state and for it to thrive long term is to
throw off this lefty leadership.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
And start electing Republicans. Now, it's not going to make
a difference unless they're really good Republicans, but we do
have a lot of really good Republicans, including a lot
of really good Republicans who run for different offices. So
long term, that's the only way we're going to turn
this state around. And I just think there is such,
not only a great opportunity, I do believe it's going
(16:47):
to happen, where the Latino vote in Colorado is going
to shift solidly in favor of the GOP. And I
think that's going to be necessary for the GOP to
take over again. And I think it's going to be
part of this big rebellion against socialism on the part
of a lot of people who currently habitually vote for Democrats.
(17:11):
They may dislike Republicans, so they'll vote for the Democrats,
but they're not going to vote for the socialists. And that,
I think, is going to be a big catalyst for
very positive change in this state during the Dan Kapler show.
Speaker 9 (17:34):
The Democratic Party is becoming, having like an orgy of socialism. So,
but overall, I'll call balls and strikes and I'm always
going to put our country ahead of party.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Well, Fetterman's exactly right about what's happening and how in
the world has Malik Kiros gotten a pass, right? You've
got Hassan Piker that, I'm sorry, you've got the Abdul El-Sayed,
the candidate Democrat for Senate in Michigan under tremendous pressure
because of His his relationship with Hassan Piker, you know,
(18:05):
and and Hassan Piker campaigning for him, et cetera, and
all the horrible things Hassan Piker says about America deserving
it on 9-11, et cetera. But you've got the same
thing with Malat Karos here in Colorado. And why isn't
there intense media focus? on her endorsement from Hassan Piker
and her campaigning with Hassan Piker and her being tied
(18:27):
to all those horrific statements, why is she being protected?
She should not be protected. There should be daily exposure
of her connection to Hassan Piker, and she should be
pinned down on, does she agree with Hassan Piker on this?
Does she agree with him on that? Why is she
being protected?
Speaker 4 (18:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
I think it just goes hand in hand, certainly with
some in the media, with their... ongoing effort to just
serve the interests of the Colorado Democratic Party. There are
some noble exceptions to that. One of those, not the
only one, one of those great exceptions is Sean Boyd
at CBS4. Hey, we're talking about what may be something,
it may be nothing. But at this point, you have
(19:07):
organizers claiming that kids from 160 middle and high schools
in Colorado are going to walk out of school this Friday,
September 4, to protest ICE. It could all be a
big lie from the organizers, or it could end up
being enormous walkouts with lots of danger and lots of
disruption of the educational system. What should the consequence be
(19:27):
for the kids who walk out of school that day? 303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9.
Text or Dan, have to hit these kids where it hurts.
Make it mandatory. They complete 320 hours of summer school.
in order to pass the next grade. See, I think
that would be too much for walking out that day.
(19:48):
I love the suggestion. from a texter that they have
to serve an extra day at the end of the year.
Everybody else gets out June 3. They have to come
back on June 4. I love that suggestion. Dan, if
the internet can get teens to Luda King Supers at
6th and Peoria, I guess you can get 100,000 to
walk out of school. There's no doubt that a lot
(20:08):
of this is coordinated that way. But has that really
been effective here? Again, I guess we'll find out on Friday. Dan,
have the state do a mandatory picture in each classroom
for the students out of class that day and then
base funding off of that? I love the creativity of
our audience. We'll go back to our fiery phone lines. Kevin,
(20:29):
you're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Welcome.
Speaker 7 (20:33):
Yeah. You asked me once... about animals and animal experts,
I'd like you to have one, Pat Craig, who created
and still runs the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keensburg.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Oh, thanks for suggesting that, Kevin. I'm sorry, different topic today,
but I love what they do out there, so thank you.
Thank you very much, Kevin, for that suggestion. And then
as we get back to.
Other callers on our topic today, just a couple of
quick notes. A lot of indicators that Garth Brooks is
going to be performing at the Grizzly Rose tomorrow night.
(21:15):
And according to the media, I've been seeing the Grizzly
Rose not selling tickets online. People have to line up,
not allowed to line up until four. be a real
interesting kind of crowd control effort there tomorrow night if
these rumors are true. And again, seems to be a
lot of support for that. And that's always so cool,
(21:35):
isn't it? No matter who the big act is, when
they end up, you know, performing at some local venue.
I've never seen one of the biggies, you know, like
the Stones or somebody do that. I have seen some
lesser groups, but it's still so cool. Troy, you're on
the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Welcome. Hey, Dan. I think you're right.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
I don't think, you know, Greg Lopez is going to win.
And I think Victor Marx is going to fall way
behind him. But, you know, when it comes to, you know,
is it more important to support the party or the people?
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Boy, I think that's a little broad there, my friend.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Well, I.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
Mean, tell me what you think. Give me your thoughts.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
Well, my thought is this. I was a Democrat, and
at great personal cost to myself, I became a Republican.
And I did that because I concluded that the Republican
Party principles were closest to mine, and the Republican Party
had the best chance of actually doing good for the weak,
(22:47):
the defenseless, the poor, the oppressed. And so I became
a Republican. So I'm leading to a point. I was
willing to pay that price. And I understand that the party,
as a practical matter, the party is the only vehicle
for accomplishing these great things. But does that mean that
(23:11):
you support the party under all or any circumstances?
Speaker 4 (23:14):
No.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
At the end of the day, none of us should
build our own jail cells. You know, we should all
be committed to the truth first and foremost. We should
be committed to core principles first and foremost. We're not
prisoners of the party.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
Yeah, the challenge, though, is that the system that we have,
you know, we've talked about the election thefts, and I
don't believe in election thefts, but I do believe the
game is rigged. And we ended up with a Republican
candidate that does not really represent the true conservative values
of this state. So, you know, do you go with the,
(23:54):
you know, party... chosen candidate, or do you go with
somebody that more closely aligns with your values?
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Well, listen, I think if at all possible, I think
it's important to support the party nominee. I think if
at all possible, there's great value in that because in
order to win, and with the Democrats being as awful
as they are on policy, and in some ways just
(24:25):
flat wicked, in order to win, then we have to
have party coherence wherever possible. I'm just saying there.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Are— Yeah, but would you say that same thing about
Janet Griswold? So Janet Griswold is a horrible candidate for
the Democratic Party. Would you tell the— Would you say
that if you were still a Democrat, would you support
Janet Griswold over Michael Allen, which is a far better candidate,
(24:54):
far better person to represent the values of the office?
Speaker 1 (24:59):
What a great example you've come up with, Troy. That's
a perfect example of what I'm talking about. And I
have this conversation with Democrat friends of mine, which is
this is a clear example. of where you need to
break with your party for the good of the state
because there are a whole lot of Democrats who understand
how deeply dangerous Jenna Griswold is, let alone obviously unqualified.
(25:23):
That's a perfect example, but I say you can have
examples in other categories. All I'm saying is wherever possible,
I try to support the party nominee because at the
end of the day, for GOP candidates in Colorado to
have any chance to win, you need a coherent party.
that is robustly supporting the GOP nominee. We cannot have
(25:46):
a situation where, just by default, when our candidate loses
the GOP primary, we don't support the winner. That's just
horrible for this state and for this party. But there
are some exceptions. There are some limits.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Right, but would you make those limits for Victor Marx,
who's selling swag to line his pockets?
Speaker 2 (26:12):
He is a horrible candidate.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Listen, my situation with Victor Marx is a little unique
in that my job is to do a conservative radio
talk show. And so if there's a candidate who is
unwilling to come on the show to answer my listeners' questions,
how could I endorse him? It's impossible. I cannot endorse
(26:37):
a candidate for any office position. who is unwilling to
come on the show and answer my listeners' questions. That
would be the weakest thing I could possibly imagine. And
I've been on air now for, let me finish this.
I've been on air for about 30 years. And every
single GOP candidate for governor or U.S. Senate has come
(26:58):
on the show whenever we have asked because of listener questions,
without exception for the last 30 years. So in my
particular job, There's no way I can endorse somebody who
is not willing to come on the show and answer
our listeners' questions.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Yeah, and I think Victor Marks came on your show,
and he rolled and dodged. Has Greg Lopez been on
your show during this race?
Speaker 1 (27:28):
I'm sure he's been on at some point, and Greg's
always welcome. He's always welcome, and we'll get him back
in again soon, and I'm sure. Thank you, Troy, for
your call. I'm sure Greg will directly answer questions. I've
enjoyed the time with Victor on the show when he
did come on. I enjoyed the hour we had in
here where we just talked about his past. And then
when he had that great fundraising quarter, we talked about
it on air. But every other invitation has been declined.
(27:52):
And at a certain point, I'm not going to ask anymore.
It's ridiculous. I'm not going to beg. You know, this
show is a tremendous opportunity for every GOP candidate and
for every Democrat candidate. And you can nobody can disprove
this over 30 years. Every GOP candidate, every Democrat candidate
has been treated with great respect. And the questioning has
(28:13):
been conducted at a very high, respectful level. But the
questions are real and the follow up questions are real
and important. And so, yeah. I mean, it's ridiculous. People
who call me up and say, hey, Dan, have you
endorsed Victor yet? I want to. But would you really
(28:34):
listen to a talk show host who endorsed a candidate
who was unwilling to come on the show and answer listeners' questions?
Why would anybody listen to that host? That would be
a host with no self-respect and no respect for his listeners.
And guess what? I have self-respect and I have respect
for my listeners. And there's a reason why every GOP
(28:55):
candidate for senator or governor in the last 30 years
has come on this show when we have asked them
to come on the show and answer listener questions. Anybody
have any issue with that? Is there any flaw in
that logic? I don't think so. You're on the Dan
Kaplan Show. It's probably– and I'm so sorry this is
(29:20):
happening while our boss is dropping by for a visit– Dave,
I'm guessing that highest levels of management of radio across
the country like you do not recommend peanut butter as
the ideal snack for talk show hosts, especially the crunchy kind. No,
I say have at it. I mean go ahead and
(29:41):
do that gummy show, Dan.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
We're here.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
We're here for you. You know, it's bad when your
boss is saying, yeah, I think we'd rather have that
choking sound than whatever your analysis may be. Appreciate that.
Take as you'd like from that, Dan. I'll tell you that.
I'll bring in a jar tomorrow for you.
Speaker 9 (29:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Appreciate that. Thomas, you're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Welcome.
Speaker 6 (30:02):
Hello, Dan.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
I've been listening to you for a long time. I
think I first started listening.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
To you when you were on Saturday morning on the blowtorch.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Wow. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
You might have even been a Democrat back then.
Speaker 6 (30:15):
I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Oh, I was. I was a Democrat when I started
on air back in like 90-ish, maybe 91.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:24):
Had to be. But one of the things that I've
heard you say over the years is there's a fatal flaw.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
In the argument. And I think you're making a fatal
flaw when.
Speaker 6 (30:35):
You're suspecting or expecting administrations to hold teachers accountable for
these mistakes.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
These protests.
Speaker 6 (30:44):
And the reason for that is that if you're familiar
with what's going on in public schools, they are hemorrhaging enrollment.
Parents are choosing to homeschool their kids, send them to charters,
or send them to private schools. And the schools actually
need these illegal aliens for head counts. Otherwise, their enrollments
(31:08):
would be even worse. I think that What I've seen,
I actually work for the largest school district in.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Northern Colorado, and if you can believe this or.
Speaker 6 (31:19):
Not, they sent their DEI manager to school bus driver
meetings and trained them on how to not cooperate with
ICE if they were to be pulled over in a
situation like that. And what they were doing was saying
basically to call in let the dispatch get a hold
(31:42):
of the district attorneys to not allow them on the
bus and to not cooperate with any type of documentation
to submit to them. And they actually gave out a
handout on how you're supposed to answer questions.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Not that ICE is hitting school buses anyway.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
That's from the highest levels of the district.
Speaker 7 (32:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (32:06):
And so do you really think that teachers are going
to be accountable for helping with these protests?
Speaker 1 (32:16):
I don't, Thomas. Not at most schools. I really don't.
And I think you make an excellent point, you know,
extending the point I made earlier about the Democrats intentionally
opening up the borders and trying to flood the country
with folks here illegally for political gain. But your point about,
you know, schools as well and school head counts is
(32:37):
well taken. In terms of ICE and school buses, I
haven't heard of ICE approaching a school bus, but I
get your broader point about just the the anti-ice attitude.
And what drives me crazy there, because listen, I can understand,
you know, reasonable, well-intentioned people saying, hey, you know, I
know these folks. They've been here for 20 years. They've
never caused any kind of problem. They're great neighbors and citizens.
(33:00):
I don't want to round up of them. I get that.
And I joined them in that. But at the same time,
anybody with a brain knows that because of what the
Democrats did, along with good people, You've got some really
significant numbers of hardened criminals, rapists, murderers, etc. And we
see those crimes being committed by them. So the fact
(33:20):
you'd have these districts go out of the way to
try to oppose ICE, what, you don't care about those
rape victims? You don't care about those murder victims? Thomas,
thank you for listening and listening all these years. I
really do appreciate that. And Dave Tepper, the big boss,
helping us out today. That is a beautiful thing. I
hope you have an absolutely wonderful evening. And God and
(33:41):
management willing, but I guess if God's willing, management will be.
We'll be back tomorrow at 4 on the Dan Kapler Show.
Are going to have walkouts this Friday to protest ICE. Now,
it could all be a big bunch of smoke from
these organizers, and you may get a relative handful, certainly
more in Denver, walkout. We'll find out together. But if
it's true, and we're looking at mass walkouts, what should
the consequences be? And we've had tremendous listener feedback on
this and really great ideas. And I would hope everybody
(00:22):
on both sides would agree with the premise that there
has to be a consequence. I mean, first of all,
schools are supposed to teach, and it's a big deal
for kids to now be missing their class and their education.
And if nothing else, you've got to teach them the
lesson of, okay, if you're going to break the rules
on a matter of principle in your mind, then whether
(00:44):
I agree with your principle or not, there's got to
be a consequence or you aren't learning anything. And if
it's truly a matter of principle for you, you should
be willing to pay the consequence to walk out. So
what should that consequence be? And we've had some tremendous
ideas from our listeners, such as the one who said, hey,
you know, have a test that day that's 75% of
(01:05):
the grade and no makeups. Now, a little bit challenging
when you're talking about September 4th, but still a nice
creative concept. Here's another one. And you can text me
at DAN57739. Dan, add a day at the end of
the year. That is a great idea. Okay, hey, knock
(01:25):
yourselves out. Go protest ICE all you want. But all
these kids who stay in school, their school year ends
on June 3rd. You've got to come back on June 4th.
I just love that idea. Another text, Dan, Holy Family
wrote parents yesterday saying they do not know Why they're
on the list and as a school do not condone
(01:47):
walkouts makes me question the entire list. Yeah, we had
a text like that earlier. I agree completely. And I
gave that caveat at the beginning of the show. We
don't know if this is just a bunch of lefty
groups making things up. This we know, and I don't
say it as a pejorative. It's just we just know this.
The left lies all the time. It's kind of a
badge of honor within the left that you're willing to lie.
(02:09):
They know they can't win on the truth. So they
may be making a whole lot of this up or
maybe not. We're going to find out.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Together.
Speaker 1 (02:17):
Let's see some other good ideas here. Dan, judging by
how well Colorado students have been performing, shouldn't they maybe
stay in class? I think we can be pretty sure
that the ones who most need to be in class
are probably going to be the ones walking out, at
least disproportionately. Though I understand the peer pressure type thing.
(02:40):
And you're going to have plenty of kids. It's one
of the reasons why Schools really need to discourage this.
I know you can't chain them to the chair, but
you get so many kids who they don't want to
be ostracized because they didn't walk out. So a relative
handful are walking out and the others say, okay, I'll
walk out of school so it just doesn't cause me
any trouble within the school. But then you're going to
(03:02):
get other kids who just say, no, as a matter
of principle, I'm not going to do it. And I'm
going to stand up and stand on my principle and
stay in school. So that'll be interesting to see. Let's see.
There are some of these. Just can't read on a
family show. Dan, students who walk out should have to
write a 10-page paper addressing the other side of the issue.
(03:26):
And then what's the consequence if they don't? And that
probably depends on the school that you're in. Dan, schools
should demonstrate democracy at work by organizing ICE debates conducted
by students. forces them to put their actions where their
mouths are. And this brings us back to the underlying issue, right?
(03:46):
This whole idea of protesting ICE to begin with. Now,
my premise, and we don't have a kid high school
age right now, but my premise is that you have,
in part because of social media, AI, et cetera, so
much news is online now, you've got a lot more
kids than we'd probably think. you know, who support ICE
(04:10):
and they understand that while a lot of otherwise good
people who have not committed any other crimes entered this
country illegally because Democrats invited them in, that at the
same time, there were some people who entered illegally who
are hardened rapists and murderers and that ICE is protecting
(04:30):
all of us when they go out there and when
they deport people here illegally who are committing other crimes.
I think there are probably a whole bunch of kids
who who realize that. And so it'll be interesting to
see how many actually walk out. Now, before the break,
we had a text from somebody who says, Dan, I
think the kids would see it as their free speech rights,
(04:53):
and we'd be better off teaching them a full perspective
of the civics in this matter, rather than trying to
convince them by telling them everybody that's being deported is
a criminal, who may very well be a relative they
know is not a criminal, other than their immigration status.
And again, thank you for that text. And I do
(05:13):
know that we all know that some of the folks
who have been deported, you know, have not committed other
serious crimes. So you're right about that texture. I think
the gist of this, and you can see different stats
on this, is that a clear majority of those deported
have been folks who have committed other crimes. So you're right.
You may very well have kids in school who say, Yeah,
(05:37):
they hadn't committed any of the crimes, but they know
that the individual is still here illegally. And I completely
respect the fact that there are a lot of reasonable people,
you know, myself included, who do not think that we
should be devoting resources to going out and rounding up
(05:58):
in mass, you know, people who came to this country
illegally a long time ago and have not committed any
other crime. I don't think that should be our focus.
I think you've got a different category for folks who
came in through this, you know, Biden, Polis, Johnston, Bennett, Hickenlooper,
(06:19):
all the Democrats, when they decided to just open the
border wide and flood this nation with folks coming here
illegally so the Democrats could try to gain an electoral advantage. Yeah,
I would put that the recent, you know, folks who entered...
As part of this political ploy by the defendants, I
would put that in a different category generally. But the
(06:42):
folks who've been here a long time, not committed any
other crime, no, I don't think we should be actively
rounding them up and deporting them. The folks who are
here illegally and have committed other serious crimes, it should
be a very top priority to get them out of
the country. And my guess is that's probably where most
(07:02):
Americans are at. I can't prove that to you, but
my guess is that's probably where most are at. So
if some kid in a school, you know, has had
a relative who's been here a long time and hasn't
committed any crime and that person got deported and the
kid feels very strongly about it and just wants to
walk out of school, I still think they shouldn't walk
(07:22):
out of school. But I'd have much more understanding for
that kid. Then what's probably going to be ninety nine
point nine percent of the kids who walk out who
just want to protest, you know, law enforcement officers who
are making all of us safer. And I know I
have a series of texts that say, Dan, ICE isn't perfect.
ICE did this. ICE did that. Listen, the point is,
(07:45):
this is a human process. There's no human organization on
Earth that's perfect.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
None.
Speaker 4 (07:50):
None.
Speaker 1 (07:52):
And so I just think it's so wrong to judge
ICE by a relative handful of folks who've committed certain abuses.
There's no perfect human entity or organization. But overall, you're
talking about law enforcement officers who do a dangerous job
that makes us safer. And so I think the schools
have to have some serious consequence for the kids who leave.
(08:15):
What do you think it should be?
Speaker 4 (08:16):
303-713-8255, DAN-57739.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Here's my game plan. I'm going to come back, go
straight to the phone line, start to get our callers in,
take some more texts. I do, if you'll indulge me
in this for about 30 seconds, I do just want
to congratulate a couple of folks from my office. And
there's a bigger point in this. What I really want
to do is congratulate them because they deserve it. Melissa
Winters and John Kellner, and they went up to Boulder
(08:44):
last week and a half, and they've been trying a
case against a trucking company. And the point of the
story is this, that You know, you have this client.
She's seriously injured. And you have the trucking company come
in and tell the jury to award her like $ 50, 000.
And to me, you know, the jury heard the case.
It was decided in the courtroom. But it is so
(09:05):
important and it is so gratifying. The jury came back
and said, no, the value of those losses is $ 5. 3 million.
And so I just I really commend Melissa and John
for going up and fighting that fight and making that point.
And it's hard work. But I just think that people
deserve respect and their injuries deserve respect. And it is
(09:26):
hard work to present all that medical evidence and prove
what's really going on. And so I just really respect
John and Melissa for doing that hard work and just
grateful for the process and the way it works and
everybody who serves on juries and the courts. And I'm
glad I live in a country where that can happen.
You're on the Dan Kaplan Show. where kids are supposed
(09:51):
to be walking out this Friday to protest ICE. We
have no idea whether that's one kid or half the
student body. Again, the whole thing may be a lie
from the left. And I'll give you the list again
of some of the groups that are pushing this. But
the starting point for you is what should the consequence
be for the kids who walk out? And then we'll
(10:12):
take it from there. We've had some tremendous suggestions ranging from, yeah,
you just give a test that day. That's 75 percent
of the grade. No makeups. Another great suggestion was, hey,
you know, and I like this one better, is everybody
who walks out has an extra day at the end
of the year. All the other kids finish June 3rd,
but the walkouts, they finish June 4th. My point is
there's got to be a consequence or else you're failing
(10:33):
the kids in two ways. You're failing the kids by
having them walk out and miss out on education, and
then you're depriving them of the educational point of, okay,
if you're going to stand on principle, even a wrong
principle like that, you're going to stand on principle, there's
going to be a consequence. Back to the phone lines.
Let's go to Mary. You're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome, Mary.
Speaker 5 (10:52):
Hi.
Speaker 4 (10:55):
A long time ago, there was a place in Illinois,
and they solved this problem, mind you, with not 500
kids all at once. But when they got out of line,
the district bought a farm. And those kids had.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
To go and live on that farm for two months.
Speaker 6 (11:16):
And they had to work from 8 in.
Speaker 4 (11:18):
The morning till 5 in the afternoon. And as the
farm grew and it became an income-making thing, it went
back to the school district. Wow.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
What did the kids walk out over?
Speaker 7 (11:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (11:35):
What do kids ever walk out over?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Walk out. They were in trouble with the school.
Speaker 1 (11:43):
What a great story. Thank you for that, Mary. Thank
you for that. William, you're on the Dan Kaplan Show. Welcome. 303-713-8255.
Speaker 3 (11:51):
Welcome, William.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
Yeah, Dan.
Speaker 8 (11:55):
I have a point and a question. As far as
I'm concerned, they ought to be suspended or expelled. They
don't deserve to.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Be catered to.
Speaker 8 (12:08):
But my question also to you is these dreamers and
these people that don't commit crimes, what do you think
about making that a civil penalty rather than a criminal
penalty and making them pay fees or fines and maybe
the amount of money that they would pay to enter
the country legally?
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Well, I think to your point, you know, there has
to be some really significant price involved. for staying in
this country when you first came here illegally. So ultimately,
and someday there will be some resolution of that. Yeah,
it can't just be free. There has to be a
significant price. But the other point of it is, and listen,
(12:52):
I get the power of this argument completely. You have
all these people who have stayed where they are, and
they've waited in line, and they've done it by the book,
and how do you let anybody else jump ahead of them?
And that is such a powerful argument. The only thing
I would say to that, and again, for those just joining,
I'm talking about people who've been here a long time
(13:15):
and have not committed any other crime. And the reason
that I don't think we should have an active roundup
of them, whereas I think we should have ICE actively
rounding up everybody here illegally who's committed other serious crimes,
whether it's at their original location or here, is I think, William,
and tell me if you disagree, I think both parties,
(13:37):
until Donald Trump was elected in 2016, I think both
parties were guilty of essentially inviting people to come to
this country illegally. I think the Democrats did it. I
think the Republicans did it. And when you've got both
parties essentially inviting people to come here illegally, if you've
(13:58):
had such folks who took them up on that invitation
and they've been here now for a very long time
and not committed any other crimes... I don't see where
our priorities should be trying to round them up and
get them out of the country.
Speaker 3 (14:12):
Well, I agree.
Speaker 8 (14:13):
I think the Republicans and the Democrats had different reasons
for doing the same thing.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
That's a good point. That's a good point. Hey, appreciate
the call. Thank you, my friend. Now, I distinguish from
this current wave where the Democrats in power, state and federal,
decided to just open the border wide. and invite in
as many as they could cram into this country legally
in as short a period of time as possible without
(14:40):
any regard for vetting or anything like that. I think
the people who came in through this latest wave, when
the Democrats were very cynically just trying to stack the
deck politically for themselves, no, I put them in a
different category. But the folks who have been here a
very long time without committing any other crime, no, I
think both parties invited them in. I think both parties
(15:02):
invited those folks in, you know, leading up to 2016.
And am I missing something? Or was Trump the first
president to just really draw the line and say, no,
we've got to enforce our laws at the border? Interesting, too,
and we'll deep dive it tomorrow. But you'll see some
reference out there to a poll of Latinos in Colorado.
And the poll, to me, seems to be very slanted
(15:26):
in favor of the Democrats. But one thing that's really
fascinating is is the only area, and this goes to
the slant in the poll, the only policy area where
Republicans tie the Democrats is on enforcing the border. Isn't
that interesting? That in a poll of Latinos that I
(15:47):
believe was slanted toward the Colorado Democratic Party, Republicans tied
the Democrats on that one issue only, controlling the border.
I think it's just so very telling, right? And it's
It's another reason I'm so optimistic about the future in
Colorado because as a practical matter, and this is not
a red good, blue bad kind of thing. I'm just
(16:10):
being realistic. I was a Democrat for years. I followed
the facts to the Republican Party.
Speaker 5 (16:15):
But the fact is the only way to save this
state and for it to thrive long term is to
throw off this lefty leadership.
Speaker 1 (16:26):
And start electing Republicans. Now, it's not going to make
a difference unless they're really good Republicans, but we do
have a lot of really good Republicans, including a lot
of really good Republicans who run for different offices. So
long term, that's the only way we're going to turn
this state around. And I just think there is such,
not only a great opportunity, I do believe it's going
(16:47):
to happen, where the Latino vote in Colorado is going
to shift solidly in favor of the GOP. And I
think that's going to be necessary for the GOP to
take over again. And I think it's going to be
part of this big rebellion against socialism on the part
of a lot of people who currently habitually vote for Democrats.
(17:11):
They may dislike Republicans, so they'll vote for the Democrats,
but they're not going to vote for the socialists. And that,
I think, is going to be a big catalyst for
very positive change in this state during the Dan Kapler show.
Speaker 9 (17:34):
The Democratic Party is becoming, having like an orgy of socialism. So,
but overall, I'll call balls and strikes and I'm always
going to put our country ahead of party.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
Well, Fetterman's exactly right about what's happening and how in
the world has Malik Kiros gotten a pass, right? You've
got Hassan Piker that, I'm sorry, you've got the Abdul El-Sayed,
the candidate Democrat for Senate in Michigan under tremendous pressure
because of His his relationship with Hassan Piker, you know,
(18:05):
and and Hassan Piker campaigning for him, et cetera, and
all the horrible things Hassan Piker says about America deserving
it on 9-11, et cetera. But you've got the same
thing with Malat Karos here in Colorado. And why isn't
there intense media focus? on her endorsement from Hassan Piker
and her campaigning with Hassan Piker and her being tied
(18:27):
to all those horrific statements, why is she being protected?
She should not be protected. There should be daily exposure
of her connection to Hassan Piker, and she should be
pinned down on, does she agree with Hassan Piker on this?
Does she agree with him on that? Why is she
being protected?
Speaker 4 (18:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
I think it just goes hand in hand, certainly with
some in the media, with their... ongoing effort to just
serve the interests of the Colorado Democratic Party. There are
some noble exceptions to that. One of those, not the
only one, one of those great exceptions is Sean Boyd
at CBS4. Hey, we're talking about what may be something,
it may be nothing. But at this point, you have
(19:07):
organizers claiming that kids from 160 middle and high schools
in Colorado are going to walk out of school this Friday,
September 4, to protest ICE. It could all be a
big lie from the organizers, or it could end up
being enormous walkouts with lots of danger and lots of
disruption of the educational system. What should the consequence be
(19:27):
for the kids who walk out of school that day? 303-713-8255, D-A-N-5-7-7-3-9.
Text or Dan, have to hit these kids where it hurts.
Make it mandatory. They complete 320 hours of summer school.
in order to pass the next grade. See, I think
that would be too much for walking out that day.
(19:48):
I love the suggestion. from a texter that they have
to serve an extra day at the end of the year.
Everybody else gets out June 3. They have to come
back on June 4. I love that suggestion. Dan, if
the internet can get teens to Luda King Supers at
6th and Peoria, I guess you can get 100,000 to
walk out of school. There's no doubt that a lot
(20:08):
of this is coordinated that way. But has that really
been effective here? Again, I guess we'll find out on Friday. Dan,
have the state do a mandatory picture in each classroom
for the students out of class that day and then
base funding off of that? I love the creativity of
our audience. We'll go back to our fiery phone lines. Kevin,
(20:29):
you're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
Welcome.
Speaker 7 (20:33):
Yeah. You asked me once... about animals and animal experts,
I'd like you to have one, Pat Craig, who created
and still runs the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keensburg.
Speaker 1 (20:53):
Oh, thanks for suggesting that, Kevin. I'm sorry, different topic today,
but I love what they do out there, so thank you.
Thank you very much, Kevin, for that suggestion. And then
as we get back to.
Other callers on our topic today, just a couple of
quick notes. A lot of indicators that Garth Brooks is
going to be performing at the Grizzly Rose tomorrow night.
(21:15):
And according to the media, I've been seeing the Grizzly
Rose not selling tickets online. People have to line up,
not allowed to line up until four. be a real
interesting kind of crowd control effort there tomorrow night if
these rumors are true. And again, seems to be a
lot of support for that. And that's always so cool,
(21:35):
isn't it? No matter who the big act is, when
they end up, you know, performing at some local venue.
I've never seen one of the biggies, you know, like
the Stones or somebody do that. I have seen some
lesser groups, but it's still so cool. Troy, you're on
the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
Welcome. Hey, Dan. I think you're right.
Speaker 3 (21:55):
I don't think, you know, Greg Lopez is going to win.
And I think Victor Marx is going to fall way
behind him. But, you know, when it comes to, you know,
is it more important to support the party or the people?
Speaker 1 (22:11):
Boy, I think that's a little broad there, my friend.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Well, I.
Speaker 3 (22:18):
Mean, tell me what you think. Give me your thoughts.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
Well, my thought is this. I was a Democrat, and
at great personal cost to myself, I became a Republican.
And I did that because I concluded that the Republican
Party principles were closest to mine, and the Republican Party
had the best chance of actually doing good for the weak,
(22:47):
the defenseless, the poor, the oppressed. And so I became
a Republican. So I'm leading to a point. I was
willing to pay that price. And I understand that the party,
as a practical matter, the party is the only vehicle
for accomplishing these great things. But does that mean that
(23:11):
you support the party under all or any circumstances?
Speaker 4 (23:14):
No.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
At the end of the day, none of us should
build our own jail cells. You know, we should all
be committed to the truth first and foremost. We should
be committed to core principles first and foremost. We're not
prisoners of the party.
Speaker 3 (23:31):
Yeah, the challenge, though, is that the system that we have,
you know, we've talked about the election thefts, and I
don't believe in election thefts, but I do believe the
game is rigged. And we ended up with a Republican
candidate that does not really represent the true conservative values
of this state. So, you know, do you go with the,
(23:54):
you know, party... chosen candidate, or do you go with
somebody that more closely aligns with your values?
Speaker 1 (24:02):
Well, listen, I think if at all possible, I think
it's important to support the party nominee. I think if
at all possible, there's great value in that because in
order to win, and with the Democrats being as awful
as they are on policy, and in some ways just
(24:25):
flat wicked, in order to win, then we have to
have party coherence wherever possible. I'm just saying there.
Speaker 3 (24:34):
Are— Yeah, but would you say that same thing about
Janet Griswold? So Janet Griswold is a horrible candidate for
the Democratic Party. Would you tell the— Would you say
that if you were still a Democrat, would you support
Janet Griswold over Michael Allen, which is a far better candidate,
(24:54):
far better person to represent the values of the office?
Speaker 1 (24:59):
What a great example you've come up with, Troy. That's
a perfect example of what I'm talking about. And I
have this conversation with Democrat friends of mine, which is
this is a clear example. of where you need to
break with your party for the good of the state
because there are a whole lot of Democrats who understand
how deeply dangerous Jenna Griswold is, let alone obviously unqualified.
(25:23):
That's a perfect example, but I say you can have
examples in other categories. All I'm saying is wherever possible,
I try to support the party nominee because at the
end of the day, for GOP candidates in Colorado to
have any chance to win, you need a coherent party.
that is robustly supporting the GOP nominee. We cannot have
(25:46):
a situation where, just by default, when our candidate loses
the GOP primary, we don't support the winner. That's just
horrible for this state and for this party. But there
are some exceptions. There are some limits.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
Right, but would you make those limits for Victor Marx,
who's selling swag to line his pockets?
Speaker 2 (26:12):
He is a horrible candidate.
Speaker 1 (26:14):
Listen, my situation with Victor Marx is a little unique
in that my job is to do a conservative radio
talk show. And so if there's a candidate who is
unwilling to come on the show to answer my listeners' questions,
how could I endorse him? It's impossible. I cannot endorse
(26:37):
a candidate for any office position. who is unwilling to
come on the show and answer my listeners' questions. That
would be the weakest thing I could possibly imagine. And
I've been on air now for, let me finish this.
I've been on air for about 30 years. And every
single GOP candidate for governor or U.S. Senate has come
(26:58):
on the show whenever we have asked because of listener questions,
without exception for the last 30 years. So in my
particular job, There's no way I can endorse somebody who
is not willing to come on the show and answer
our listeners' questions.
Speaker 3 (27:16):
Yeah, and I think Victor Marks came on your show,
and he rolled and dodged. Has Greg Lopez been on
your show during this race?
Speaker 1 (27:28):
I'm sure he's been on at some point, and Greg's
always welcome. He's always welcome, and we'll get him back
in again soon, and I'm sure. Thank you, Troy, for
your call. I'm sure Greg will directly answer questions. I've
enjoyed the time with Victor on the show when he
did come on. I enjoyed the hour we had in
here where we just talked about his past. And then
when he had that great fundraising quarter, we talked about
it on air. But every other invitation has been declined.
(27:52):
And at a certain point, I'm not going to ask anymore.
It's ridiculous. I'm not going to beg. You know, this
show is a tremendous opportunity for every GOP candidate and
for every Democrat candidate. And you can nobody can disprove
this over 30 years. Every GOP candidate, every Democrat candidate
has been treated with great respect. And the questioning has
(28:13):
been conducted at a very high, respectful level. But the
questions are real and the follow up questions are real
and important. And so, yeah. I mean, it's ridiculous. People
who call me up and say, hey, Dan, have you
endorsed Victor yet? I want to. But would you really
(28:34):
listen to a talk show host who endorsed a candidate
who was unwilling to come on the show and answer listeners' questions?
Why would anybody listen to that host? That would be
a host with no self-respect and no respect for his listeners.
And guess what? I have self-respect and I have respect
for my listeners. And there's a reason why every GOP
(28:55):
candidate for senator or governor in the last 30 years
has come on this show when we have asked them
to come on the show and answer listener questions. Anybody
have any issue with that? Is there any flaw in
that logic? I don't think so. You're on the Dan
Kaplan Show. It's probably– and I'm so sorry this is
(29:20):
happening while our boss is dropping by for a visit– Dave,
I'm guessing that highest levels of management of radio across
the country like you do not recommend peanut butter as
the ideal snack for talk show hosts, especially the crunchy kind. No,
I say have at it. I mean go ahead and
(29:41):
do that gummy show, Dan.
Speaker 3 (29:42):
We're here.
Speaker 1 (29:42):
We're here for you. You know, it's bad when your
boss is saying, yeah, I think we'd rather have that
choking sound than whatever your analysis may be. Appreciate that.
Take as you'd like from that, Dan. I'll tell you that.
I'll bring in a jar tomorrow for you.
Speaker 9 (29:56):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (29:57):
Appreciate that. Thomas, you're on the Dan Kaplan Show.
Speaker 2 (30:00):
Welcome.
Speaker 6 (30:02):
Hello, Dan.
Speaker 2 (30:03):
I've been listening to you for a long time. I
think I first started listening.
Speaker 6 (30:07):
To you when you were on Saturday morning on the blowtorch.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
Wow. Thank you.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
You might have even been a Democrat back then.
Speaker 6 (30:15):
I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Oh, I was. I was a Democrat when I started
on air back in like 90-ish, maybe 91.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (30:24):
Had to be. But one of the things that I've
heard you say over the years is there's a fatal flaw.
Speaker 2 (30:31):
In the argument. And I think you're making a fatal
flaw when.
Speaker 6 (30:35):
You're suspecting or expecting administrations to hold teachers accountable for
these mistakes.
Speaker 2 (30:43):
These protests.
Speaker 6 (30:44):
And the reason for that is that if you're familiar
with what's going on in public schools, they are hemorrhaging enrollment.
Parents are choosing to homeschool their kids, send them to charters,
or send them to private schools. And the schools actually
need these illegal aliens for head counts. Otherwise, their enrollments
(31:08):
would be even worse. I think that What I've seen,
I actually work for the largest school district in.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Northern Colorado, and if you can believe this or.
Speaker 6 (31:19):
Not, they sent their DEI manager to school bus driver
meetings and trained them on how to not cooperate with
ICE if they were to be pulled over in a
situation like that. And what they were doing was saying
basically to call in let the dispatch get a hold
(31:42):
of the district attorneys to not allow them on the
bus and to not cooperate with any type of documentation
to submit to them. And they actually gave out a
handout on how you're supposed to answer questions.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
Not that ICE is hitting school buses anyway.
Speaker 2 (32:03):
That's from the highest levels of the district.
Speaker 7 (32:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (32:06):
And so do you really think that teachers are going
to be accountable for helping with these protests?
Speaker 1 (32:16):
I don't, Thomas. Not at most schools. I really don't.
And I think you make an excellent point, you know,
extending the point I made earlier about the Democrats intentionally
opening up the borders and trying to flood the country
with folks here illegally for political gain. But your point about,
you know, schools as well and school head counts is
(32:37):
well taken. In terms of ICE and school buses, I
haven't heard of ICE approaching a school bus, but I
get your broader point about just the the anti-ice attitude.
And what drives me crazy there, because listen, I can understand,
you know, reasonable, well-intentioned people saying, hey, you know, I
know these folks. They've been here for 20 years. They've
never caused any kind of problem. They're great neighbors and citizens.
(33:00):
I don't want to round up of them. I get that.
And I joined them in that. But at the same time,
anybody with a brain knows that because of what the
Democrats did, along with good people, You've got some really
significant numbers of hardened criminals, rapists, murderers, etc. And we
see those crimes being committed by them. So the fact
(33:20):
you'd have these districts go out of the way to
try to oppose ICE, what, you don't care about those
rape victims? You don't care about those murder victims? Thomas,
thank you for listening and listening all these years. I
really do appreciate that. And Dave Tepper, the big boss,
helping us out today. That is a beautiful thing. I
hope you have an absolutely wonderful evening. And God and
(33:41):
management willing, but I guess if God's willing, management will be.
We'll be back tomorrow at 4 on the Dan Kapler Show.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!